Reply from Candidate Alon Bassok

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please find my responses to your questions below within your original text.

Kind regards,

Alon

Dear city council candidates:

I
am writing on behalf of the Phinney Ridge Community Council. We are
currently reviewing the mayor’s proposed “Roadmap to an Affordable and
Livable City,” and would like to know the council candidates’ positions
on several of the mayor’s proposals. We are asking the questions of all
candidates who will appear on the ballot in District 6. We intend to
distribute your answers to our members and post a link to them on our
Facebook page. Please feel free to provide an explanation for your
answers as you see fit. Thanks in advance for taking the time to
promptly respond.

Here are our questions:

1. Do
you agree with the mayor’s proposal to allow “small lot dwellings,
cottages or courtyard housing, rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes and
stacked flats” in single-family zones?

Yes.
We already allow for single family homes to have either a basement
apartment or a detached backyard cottage. That is already two--not one.
The new regulations would allow both. That would bring us to three.

Since we would have three, I am open to different versions of three.

Some
people argue that the accessory units as opposed to duplex/triplex
would generate income for the owner and prevent displacement. This is
not likely because the remodel of a basement and construction of a
backyard cottage would cost upwards of $200,000. For people in danger of
being displaced, a load of that size is likely out of reach in addition
to their existing mortgage. As such, I don't believe Mother-In-Laws and
Backyard Cottages will produce a lot of new housing.

However,
I think there is a lot of potential for other housing types to add more
housing. For example, imagine a home that from the street appears to be
a two story single-family home with a daylight basement. But, inside
you would have separate condos in the daylight basement, first floor and
second floor. This would require less space, keep more room between
houses and can maintain look and feel of existing streets.

I
believe most of the problems we have with regards to development have a
lot to do with poor design. We need better design guidelines. All of
the building types you have asked about can be done tastefully and be
attractive.

No one will be required to build
or tear down under the new rules. But, we need a lot more housing in
this city and the HALA recommendations are a good first step forward.

2. Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to expand the boundaries of some urban villages, such as in Ballard?

In
general, yes. I believe we can expand the boundaries where it makes
sense to do so. There are also some places (for example, the are in the
West Seattle village with six churches/schools) that likely don't make
much sense for that designation.

3. Do
you agree with the mayor’s proposal to reduce parking requirements in
transit-served areas and in multi-family zones outside urban centers and
urban villages, to ensure that parking requirements are not
re-introduced in urban villages and urban centers, and eliminate parking
requirements for “small-scale” housing types in single-family
neighborhoods?

Most
of the vehicles parked within the urban villages were registered to
single family homes and to apartments that had parking. This makes
sense. If you live in an apartment that charges you for parking, it's
not hard to do the math on free street parking being cheaper. For a
single family home, parking on the street and using the garage for
storage or shop space is cheaper and more convenient than renting shop
or storage space elsewhere.

And, most
importantly, we found there to be available parking spaces at night for
the stationary population. The lack of parking is a commercial business
issue and not a residential one.

The problem
that we have is that so many of us do not have good transit options to
get to the commercial cores of our neighborhoods. We need transit that
serves not only commuters and downtown but also the neighborhoods.

4. Do
you agree with the mayor’s proposal to increase allowable height and
density in multi-family, neighborhood-commercial and commercial zones?
Do you believe that such an increase is necessary to create affordable
housing?

Yes. I support the
height increases because I fully believe in the efficacy of inclusionary
up-zoning. This is a tool that can provide us with many thousands of
affordable housing units while not increasing the tax burden on
Seattle's residents.

5. Do
you believe that the mayor’s proposal does enough to require developers
to help provide affordable housing and mitigate the impact of
development? Would you support other measures, such as a tougher
inclusionary-housing requirement, or broader linkage and impact fees?

I
would hope that the HALA recommendations could have gone further to
increase the percentage of housing units required to be affordable.
Throughout my campaign, I have called for mandatory inclusionary
up-zoning requiring 1 in every 5 new units built be affordable to people
making the minimum wage. The HALA report calls for 7%, compared to my
proposed 20%. My proposal may be found here: http://www.alonbassok.com/images/bassok-housing-paper.pdf